Trust-me-not Ecologists and the Sangai

Chabungbam Amuba Singh *

Sangai is historically and socially, closely associated with the cultural life of the Manipuris :: Pix taken in February 2009

In the early eighties I was involved in the glamorous yet ill-fated Himalaya Eco-Project in Manipur university. I was told - first, personally by a well known scientist friend and later by many ecologists- that maintaining the water level of the Loktak lake high and stagnant ( as a consequence of the Ithai barrage/LHEP becoming operational) would adversely affect the annual Phumdi rejuvenation cycle and consequently the Sangais will lose out their natural habitat the Keibul Lamjao.

A few days ago, I read the same scientific 'edict', on the front page of the Sangai Express (Manipuri, 11/7/2013), reiterated by three experts from the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

Three decades have passed since my tryst with the ill-fated Himalayan Eco-Project and after sitting over several thousand hours before the idiot box watching nature channels- Animal planet/National Geography/Discovery and their subsidiaries - I have become a little bit better educated about admiring the wonderful ways of nature ( which had also drawn me towards God) , and that has led me to doubting the truth of the above 'edict'.

If the above edict is true and if the claim of the three Dehradun experts that the Phumdi in Keibul Lamjao is losing 9 p.c. of its thickness annually is true, anyone equipped with High school level mathematical ability can understand that by now the Phumdi thickness would have reduced to just about 6 p.c. of what it was in the year of commissioning the LHEP (1983) and the Sangais would have disappeared completely ( having lost their habitat completely).

The fact, however, is that the Sangais have thrived at Keibul Lamjao ( in spite of the LHEP!), their number having grown from below thirty in the early eighties to the present day figure of 204.

[ An idea of Sangai population trajectory in the Keibul Lamjao over the past 60 years can be obtained from the following figures:-
6 (1953),
14 (1974),
<30 (1983),
155 (1995),
162 (2000),
180 (2004),
204 (2013).

The life span of the Sangai in the wild is about 10-12 years.]

What then is the flaw in the above 'scientific edict'? It might be that it ignores nature's wonderful capacity to adjust to changing environment . It might also be that our scientist friends have not inquired adequately to understand the nutrient dynamics in the aquatic ecosystem relevant to the present case.

One question need be put to our Dehradun experts. On the thickness of the Phumdi at the Sangai habitat at Keibul Lamjao the experts say that the thickest measures 163.01 cm, the medium thick one 105.58 cm and the thin one 47.44 cm. Then they proceed to predict that in ten years time the corresponding figures would become 63.48 cm, 41.11 cm and 18.47 cm respectively.

The question is - How on earth can you measure the thickness of the Phumdi down to an accuracy of a tenth of a millimetre?

Even the best skilled ophthalmologist with his laser needle will envy that kind of accuracy. Darn it, it is unscientific way of doing science! Regarding the predicted figures, it is apparent that no much scientific thinking has gone into it, because your predicted figures are obtained by just multiplying the current figures by the 'magic' number 0.389. And you know the secret of the latter - it just comes out of your hypothesis of 9 p.c. annual decrease, a hypothesis which is not supported by the facts of the case.

We ought to respect the concern of the experts about the welfare of the Sangais. But their expressed concern about the man-made alteration in the hydrology of the Loktak lake and the consequent impact on the ecosystem and on the life-style ( 'punshi- mahing' in Manipuri) of the people in the surrounding villages sounds more like the commonplace lamentation of the 'activists' of various hues ( the environmental activist, the political activist, the social activist - and of course, amalgamation of these kinds) than a unbiased scientific finding.

Sometime back a local environmental activist ( the 'environmentalist' accolade accorded by a section of the local media) blew his anti-dam mind-set out of all proportion of rationality when he claimed that "83,450 hectares of agricultural land on both sides of the Ithai Dam have been affected (by the LHEP)". Does he realise that the quoted size of the affected area is nearly half the central Manipur valley area ( to be precise, 46 p.c.)?

The bottom line is that if you really care for the welfare of the Sangais you ought to work on the hard scientific facts free of taint emanating from an activist mind-set . Activism-tainted half-truths cannot evoke positive response from the people who hold the rein of development of the region.

The moot question - which is definitely more pertinent than the commonplace leveling of belated blame at the Ithai/LHEP - is how big a Sangai population the present habitat at Keibul Lamjao can support and how close the current population is to that critical size. The implication is that we need to make scientific enquiry into what the ecologists call the carrying capacity of the Sangai habitat at the Keibul Lamjao National Park (KLNP).

It is ironic that Phumdi the asset of the KLNP is the main liability of the LDA. As per progress reports for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 the LDA has removed 92 lakh cubic metres of Phumdi from its 'authorised area of activity' in the Loktak lake.

That is quite big an amount - enough to cover a 3 sq.km area 3 metres thick. If it is somehow pushed into the National park area will it regenerate fresh green biomass over a period of time? Is it a feasible way to enrich and enlarge the Sangai habitat at Keibul Lamjao? If so, it would be an apt example of the proverbial killing of two birds with one stone .